Pelvic examination, tumor marker level, and gray-scale and doppler sonography in the prediction of pelvic cancer

To determine the ability of pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography, with selected use of Doppler ultrasonography, to predict pelvic malignancy. Two hundred twenty-six women scheduled for operative removal of a pelvic mass were entered in the study prospectively...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953) 1997-04, Vol.89 (4), p.493-500
Hauptverfasser: Roman, Lynda D., Muderspach, Laila I., Stein, Sharon M., Laifer-Narin, Sherelle, Groshen, Susan, Paul Morrow, C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 500
container_issue 4
container_start_page 493
container_title Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)
container_volume 89
creator Roman, Lynda D.
Muderspach, Laila I.
Stein, Sharon M.
Laifer-Narin, Sherelle
Groshen, Susan
Paul Morrow, C.
description To determine the ability of pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography, with selected use of Doppler ultrasonography, to predict pelvic malignancy. Two hundred twenty-six women scheduled for operative removal of a pelvic mass were entered in the study prospectively. Each woman underwent pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography preoperatively. Women whose gray-scale findings were suspicious for malignancy underwent Doppler ultrasonography. Suspicious findings included masses that were fixed or irregular on pelvic examination; CA 125 level greater than 35 U/mL; elevations in serum lactic dehydrogenase, alphafetoprotein, or hCG; and the presence of a substantial solid component on gray-scale ultrasonography. Suspicious Doppler findings included intratumoral color flow, pulsatility index less than 1.0, or resistance index 0.4 or lower. The findings were correlated with the presence of malignancy. If all three indicators (examination, tumor marker assessment, and gray-scale ultrasound findings) were non-suspicious, 99% of premenopausal women and 100% of postmenopausal women had benign masses. If all three indicators were suspicious, 77% of premenopausal women and 83% of postmenopausal women had malignant tumors. Logistic regression identified ultrasound impression and tumor size to be significant predictors of malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasound impression were significant in postmenopausal women. In patients with suspicious gray-scale findings, recategorization based on Doppler findings resulted in inferior diagnostic indices. Ultrasonographic tumor size and appearance are the best predictors of pelvic malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasonographic appearance are the best predictors in postmenopausal women. Neither color nor spectral Doppler is useful in this setting.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00075-6
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78889584</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0029784497000756</els_id><sourcerecordid>78889584</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-81b79347bab64307086be2bd52d98b40319397557ddeadd40664f5f5c559c6603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkFtrFDEYhoNY6lr9CYVciCh0ajI5X4kUD4WCBRW8C5nkGxudmUyT2cX992YP7K1XIbzPd3oQuqTkmhIq330jpDWN0py_MeotIUSJRj5BK6oVa1rGfj5FqxPyDD0v5XeFqDTsHJ0bohkjdIXmexg20WP468Y4uSWm6Qov6zFlPLr8BzIeYAPDFXZTwL-y2zbFuwH235DmeahESVOq0fywxXHCywPgOUOIftcMpx7PhxHeTR7yC3TWu6HAy-N7gX58-vj95ktz9_Xz7c2Hu8ZzTpdG004ZxlXnOskZUUTLDtouiDYY3XHCqGFGCaFCABcCJ1LyXvTCC2G8lIRdoNeHvnNOj2soix1j8TAMboK0LlZprY3QvILiAPqcSsnQ2znHevvWUmJ3pu3etN1ptEbZvWkra93lccC6GyGcqo5qa_7qmLudsj7X82M5Ya2kikpdsfcHDKqMTYRsi49QTYWYwS82pPifRf4BTOSa4g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78889584</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pelvic examination, tumor marker level, and gray-scale and doppler sonography in the prediction of pelvic cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Roman, Lynda D. ; Muderspach, Laila I. ; Stein, Sharon M. ; Laifer-Narin, Sherelle ; Groshen, Susan ; Paul Morrow, C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Roman, Lynda D. ; Muderspach, Laila I. ; Stein, Sharon M. ; Laifer-Narin, Sherelle ; Groshen, Susan ; Paul Morrow, C.</creatorcontrib><description>To determine the ability of pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography, with selected use of Doppler ultrasonography, to predict pelvic malignancy. Two hundred twenty-six women scheduled for operative removal of a pelvic mass were entered in the study prospectively. Each woman underwent pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography preoperatively. Women whose gray-scale findings were suspicious for malignancy underwent Doppler ultrasonography. Suspicious findings included masses that were fixed or irregular on pelvic examination; CA 125 level greater than 35 U/mL; elevations in serum lactic dehydrogenase, alphafetoprotein, or hCG; and the presence of a substantial solid component on gray-scale ultrasonography. Suspicious Doppler findings included intratumoral color flow, pulsatility index less than 1.0, or resistance index 0.4 or lower. The findings were correlated with the presence of malignancy. If all three indicators (examination, tumor marker assessment, and gray-scale ultrasound findings) were non-suspicious, 99% of premenopausal women and 100% of postmenopausal women had benign masses. If all three indicators were suspicious, 77% of premenopausal women and 83% of postmenopausal women had malignant tumors. Logistic regression identified ultrasound impression and tumor size to be significant predictors of malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasound impression were significant in postmenopausal women. In patients with suspicious gray-scale findings, recategorization based on Doppler findings resulted in inferior diagnostic indices. Ultrasonographic tumor size and appearance are the best predictors of pelvic malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasonographic appearance are the best predictors in postmenopausal women. Neither color nor spectral Doppler is useful in this setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-7844</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-233X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00075-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9083301</identifier><identifier>CODEN: OBGNAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Biomarkers, Tumor ; Confidence Intervals ; Female ; Female genital diseases ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Pelvic Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Physical Examination ; Postmenopause ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Premenopause ; Prospective Studies ; Regression Analysis ; Tumors ; Ultrasonography, Doppler</subject><ispartof>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 1997-04, Vol.89 (4), p.493-500</ispartof><rights>1997 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists</rights><rights>1997 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-81b79347bab64307086be2bd52d98b40319397557ddeadd40664f5f5c559c6603</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2617168$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9083301$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roman, Lynda D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muderspach, Laila I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stein, Sharon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laifer-Narin, Sherelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groshen, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paul Morrow, C.</creatorcontrib><title>Pelvic examination, tumor marker level, and gray-scale and doppler sonography in the prediction of pelvic cancer</title><title>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</title><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>To determine the ability of pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography, with selected use of Doppler ultrasonography, to predict pelvic malignancy. Two hundred twenty-six women scheduled for operative removal of a pelvic mass were entered in the study prospectively. Each woman underwent pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography preoperatively. Women whose gray-scale findings were suspicious for malignancy underwent Doppler ultrasonography. Suspicious findings included masses that were fixed or irregular on pelvic examination; CA 125 level greater than 35 U/mL; elevations in serum lactic dehydrogenase, alphafetoprotein, or hCG; and the presence of a substantial solid component on gray-scale ultrasonography. Suspicious Doppler findings included intratumoral color flow, pulsatility index less than 1.0, or resistance index 0.4 or lower. The findings were correlated with the presence of malignancy. If all three indicators (examination, tumor marker assessment, and gray-scale ultrasound findings) were non-suspicious, 99% of premenopausal women and 100% of postmenopausal women had benign masses. If all three indicators were suspicious, 77% of premenopausal women and 83% of postmenopausal women had malignant tumors. Logistic regression identified ultrasound impression and tumor size to be significant predictors of malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasound impression were significant in postmenopausal women. In patients with suspicious gray-scale findings, recategorization based on Doppler findings resulted in inferior diagnostic indices. Ultrasonographic tumor size and appearance are the best predictors of pelvic malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasonographic appearance are the best predictors in postmenopausal women. Neither color nor spectral Doppler is useful in this setting.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomarkers, Tumor</subject><subject>Confidence Intervals</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Female genital diseases</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Pelvic Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Physical Examination</subject><subject>Postmenopause</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Premenopause</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Doppler</subject><issn>0029-7844</issn><issn>1873-233X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkFtrFDEYhoNY6lr9CYVciCh0ajI5X4kUD4WCBRW8C5nkGxudmUyT2cX992YP7K1XIbzPd3oQuqTkmhIq330jpDWN0py_MeotIUSJRj5BK6oVa1rGfj5FqxPyDD0v5XeFqDTsHJ0bohkjdIXmexg20WP468Y4uSWm6Qov6zFlPLr8BzIeYAPDFXZTwL-y2zbFuwH235DmeahESVOq0fywxXHCywPgOUOIftcMpx7PhxHeTR7yC3TWu6HAy-N7gX58-vj95ktz9_Xz7c2Hu8ZzTpdG004ZxlXnOskZUUTLDtouiDYY3XHCqGFGCaFCABcCJ1LyXvTCC2G8lIRdoNeHvnNOj2soix1j8TAMboK0LlZprY3QvILiAPqcSsnQ2znHevvWUmJ3pu3etN1ptEbZvWkra93lccC6GyGcqo5qa_7qmLudsj7X82M5Ya2kikpdsfcHDKqMTYRsi49QTYWYwS82pPifRf4BTOSa4g</recordid><startdate>19970401</startdate><enddate>19970401</enddate><creator>Roman, Lynda D.</creator><creator>Muderspach, Laila I.</creator><creator>Stein, Sharon M.</creator><creator>Laifer-Narin, Sherelle</creator><creator>Groshen, Susan</creator><creator>Paul Morrow, C.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Science</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19970401</creationdate><title>Pelvic examination, tumor marker level, and gray-scale and doppler sonography in the prediction of pelvic cancer</title><author>Roman, Lynda D. ; Muderspach, Laila I. ; Stein, Sharon M. ; Laifer-Narin, Sherelle ; Groshen, Susan ; Paul Morrow, C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c441t-81b79347bab64307086be2bd52d98b40319397557ddeadd40664f5f5c559c6603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomarkers, Tumor</topic><topic>Confidence Intervals</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Female genital diseases</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Pelvic Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Physical Examination</topic><topic>Postmenopause</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Premenopause</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Doppler</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roman, Lynda D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muderspach, Laila I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stein, Sharon M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laifer-Narin, Sherelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groshen, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paul Morrow, C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roman, Lynda D.</au><au>Muderspach, Laila I.</au><au>Stein, Sharon M.</au><au>Laifer-Narin, Sherelle</au><au>Groshen, Susan</au><au>Paul Morrow, C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pelvic examination, tumor marker level, and gray-scale and doppler sonography in the prediction of pelvic cancer</atitle><jtitle>Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953)</jtitle><addtitle>Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>1997-04-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>89</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>493</spage><epage>500</epage><pages>493-500</pages><issn>0029-7844</issn><eissn>1873-233X</eissn><coden>OBGNAS</coden><abstract>To determine the ability of pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography, with selected use of Doppler ultrasonography, to predict pelvic malignancy. Two hundred twenty-six women scheduled for operative removal of a pelvic mass were entered in the study prospectively. Each woman underwent pelvic examination, tumor marker assessment, and transvaginal ultrasonography preoperatively. Women whose gray-scale findings were suspicious for malignancy underwent Doppler ultrasonography. Suspicious findings included masses that were fixed or irregular on pelvic examination; CA 125 level greater than 35 U/mL; elevations in serum lactic dehydrogenase, alphafetoprotein, or hCG; and the presence of a substantial solid component on gray-scale ultrasonography. Suspicious Doppler findings included intratumoral color flow, pulsatility index less than 1.0, or resistance index 0.4 or lower. The findings were correlated with the presence of malignancy. If all three indicators (examination, tumor marker assessment, and gray-scale ultrasound findings) were non-suspicious, 99% of premenopausal women and 100% of postmenopausal women had benign masses. If all three indicators were suspicious, 77% of premenopausal women and 83% of postmenopausal women had malignant tumors. Logistic regression identified ultrasound impression and tumor size to be significant predictors of malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasound impression were significant in postmenopausal women. In patients with suspicious gray-scale findings, recategorization based on Doppler findings resulted in inferior diagnostic indices. Ultrasonographic tumor size and appearance are the best predictors of pelvic malignancy in premenopausal women, whereas CA 125 level and ultrasonographic appearance are the best predictors in postmenopausal women. Neither color nor spectral Doppler is useful in this setting.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>9083301</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00075-6</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0029-7844
ispartof Obstetrics and gynecology (New York. 1953), 1997-04, Vol.89 (4), p.493-500
issn 0029-7844
1873-233X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78889584
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Biomarkers, Tumor
Confidence Intervals
Female
Female genital diseases
Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics
Humans
Medical sciences
Pelvic Neoplasms - diagnosis
Physical Examination
Postmenopause
Predictive Value of Tests
Premenopause
Prospective Studies
Regression Analysis
Tumors
Ultrasonography, Doppler
title Pelvic examination, tumor marker level, and gray-scale and doppler sonography in the prediction of pelvic cancer
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T21%3A01%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pelvic%20examination,%20tumor%20marker%20level,%20and%20gray-scale%20and%20doppler%20sonography%20in%20the%20prediction%20of%20pelvic%20cancer&rft.jtitle=Obstetrics%20and%20gynecology%20(New%20York.%201953)&rft.au=Roman,%20Lynda%20D.&rft.date=1997-04-01&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=493&rft.epage=500&rft.pages=493-500&rft.issn=0029-7844&rft.eissn=1873-233X&rft.coden=OBGNAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00075-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78889584%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78889584&rft_id=info:pmid/9083301&rft_els_id=S0029784497000756&rfr_iscdi=true